Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 1647
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
Vineeta Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Sharma – Respondent
Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 32601 of 2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-05-2018 in RFA No. 301 of 2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi At New Delhi)
Decided on : 05-12-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Biswajit Bhattacharya, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Mr. Shankar Narayanan, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, Ms. Jyoti Prakash Mohanty, Adv.
Conflict of opinion in Division Bench Judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the need for a three-Judge Bench to resolve the conflict.
Headnote:
Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Conflict of opinion in Division Bench Judgments
Fact of the Case:
The court noted a conflict of opinion in two Division Bench Judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the conflict and decided that the matter needs to be heard by a Bench of three Judges. However, it was also highlighted that the matter should be referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the constitution of the Bench.
Issues: Conflict of opinion in Division Bench Judgments, interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, constitution of the Bench for hearing the matter
Ratio Decidendi: The conflict of opinion in the Division Bench Judgments and the need for a three-Judge Bench to hear the matter influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the constitution of the Bench.
ORDER :
1. There is a conflict of opinion in two Division Bench Judgments of this Court i.e. Prakash vs. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36 and Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343 with regard to interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005.
2. In view thereof, this matter has to be heard by a Bench of three Judge. Though we are sitting in combination of three Judge Bench, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 as per which the matter is to be referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice and it is for the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a Bench for hearing the matter.
3. We accordingly direct the Registry to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of the Bench.
